[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17995-18000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08664]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-883, A-588-878, and A-549-837]


Glycine From India, Japan, and Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Applicable April 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 or 
Kent Boydston at (202) 482-5649 (India); Madeline Heeren at (202) 482-
9179 or John McGowan at (202) 482-3019 (Japan); and Brian Smith at 
(202) 482-1766 or Jesus Saenz at (202) 482-8184 (Thailand); AD/CVD 
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On March 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of glycine 
from India, Japan, and Thailand, and countervailing duty (CVD) 
Petitions concerning imports of glycine from the People's Republic of 
China, India, and Thailand filed in proper form on behalf of GEO 
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., and Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (the 
petitioners).\1\ The petitioners are domestic producers of glycine.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the petitioners' letter, ``Glycine from the People's 
Republic of China, India, Japan and Thailand: Petitions for 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated March 
28, 2018 (the Petitions). For the purposes of the instant notice, 
all references to `the Petitions,' herein, refer specifically to the 
AD Petitions.
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 2, 6, and 10, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental 
information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The 
petitioners filed responses to these requests on April 4, 5, 9, 10, and 
11, 2018.\4\ On April 10,

[[Page 17996]]

2018, the petitioners submitted certain revisions to the scope.\5\ On 
April 16, 2018, the petitioners submitted a revised publicly summarized 
affidavit and attachment to the Second AD Thailand Supplement in 
response to Commerce's request.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Commerce's letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China, India, Japan, and Thailand: Supplemental 
Questions'' (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); ``Petition 
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from 
India: Supplemental Questions'' (India AD Supplemental 
Questionnaire); ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Imports of Glycine from Japan: Supplemental Questions'' (Japan AD 
Supplemental Questionnaire); and ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from Thailand: Supplemental 
Questions'' (Thailand AD Supplemental Questionnaire). All four of 
these documents are dated April 2, 2018. See also ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from India: 
Supplemental Questions;'' ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from Thailand: Additional 
Supplemental Questions;'' and Commerce's memorandum, ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Glycine from Thailand: Phone 
Call with Counsel to the Petitioners.'' All four of these documents 
are dated April 6, 2018. See also Commerce's memoranda, ``Petitions 
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on 
Imports of Glycine from the People's Republic of China, India, 
Japan, and Thailand,'' dated April 10, 2018; and ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from Japan,'' 
dated April 11, 2018.
    \4\ See the petitioners' separate letters regarding General 
Issues, India, Japan and Thailand, each entitled, ``Petitions for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from 
India, Japan and Thailand, and Countervailing Duties on Imports from 
the People's Republic of China, India and Thailand: Responses to 
Supplemental Questions'' (General Issues Supplement), dated April 4, 
2018; ``Glycine from India: Responses to Supplemental Questions'' 
(India AD Supplement), dated April 5, 2018; ``Glycine from Japan: 
Responses to Supplemental Questions'' (Japan AD Supplement), dated 
April 5, 2018; and ``Glycine from Thailand: Responses to 
Supplemental Questions'' (Thai AD Supplement), dated April 5, 2018. 
See also the petitioners' separate letters regarding ``Glycine from 
Thailand: Submission of Missing Declaration,'' and ``Glycine from 
Japan: Additional Responses to Supplemental Questions.'' These two 
documents are dated April 5, 2018. See also the petitioners' 
separate letters regarding ``Glycine from India: Response to Second 
Supplemental Questionnaire'' (Second India AD Supplement); and 
``Glycine from Thailand: Response to Second Supplemental 
Questionnaire'' (Second Thailand AD Supplement). These two documents 
are dated April 9, 2018. See also the petitioners' separate letters 
regarding ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Glycine from India, Japan and Thailand, and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports from the People's Republic of 
China, India and Thailand: Revised Scope'' (Revised Scope 
Submission), dated April 10, 2018; and ``Glycine from Japan: 
Additional Calculations'' (Second Japan AD Supplement), dated April 
11, 2018.
    \5\ See Memorandum, ``Phone Call with Counsel to the 
Petitioners,'' dated April 10, 2018; see also Petitioners' Letter, 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Glycine from India, Japan and Thailand, and Countervailing Duties on 
Imports from the People's Republic of China, India and Thailand: 
Revised Scope,'' dated April 10, 2018 (Revised Scope Submission), at 
1-2.
    \6\ See Memorandum, ``Phone Call with Counsel to the 
Petitioners,'' dated April 13, 2018; and the petitioners' letter, 
``Glycine from Thailand: Revised Bracketing,'' dated April 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of glycine from 
India, Japan, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing glycine 
in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the 
Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the 
petitioners supporting their allegations.
    Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties 
as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that 
the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect 
to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are 
requesting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on March 28, 2018, the period of 
investigation (POI) for each of the investigations is January 1, 2017, 
through December 31, 2017.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is glycine from India, 
Japan, and Thailand. For a full description of the scope of these 
investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, Commerce issued questions to, 
and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate 
reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking 
relief.\9\ As a result of these exchanges, the scope of the Petitions 
was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the 
Petitions. The description of the merchandise covered by this 
initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these 
clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire, at 3-5 and 
General Issues Supplement at 3-8; see also Revised Scope Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage (scope).\10\ Commerce will consider all comments 
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determinations. If scope comments include factual information,\11\ all 
such factual information should be limited to public information. To 
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that 
all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
(ET) on May 7, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date 
of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual 
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2018, which is 10 
calendar days from the initial comments deadline.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \12\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider 
relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this 
time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional 
factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may 
be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to 
submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on 
the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations, in 
accordance with the filing requirements, discussed immediately below.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\13\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable 
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing 
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using 
ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a 
handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    Commerce requests comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriate physical characteristics of glycine to be reported in 
response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used 
to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under 
consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production 
accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison 
criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics, and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it 
is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as 
product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, 
although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by 
manufacturers to describe glycine, it may be that only a select few 
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.

[[Page 17997]]

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product 
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 7, 2018. 
Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 14, 2018. 
All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically 
using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the India, Japan, 
and Thailand less-than-fair-value investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) 
Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or 
(ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling 
method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the 
ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\14\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination 
is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may 
result in different definitions of the like product, such differences 
do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \15\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations.\16\ Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that glycine, as defined in 
the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 7.
    \17\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Glycine 
from India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 
Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Petitions Covering Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 
India, Japan, and Thailand (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Glycine from Japan (Japan AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Glycine from Thailand (Thailand 
AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are 
dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via 
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in 
the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided 
their own production of the domestic like product in 2017.\18\ The 
petitioners state that there are no other known producers of glycine in 
the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 
percent of the U.S. industry.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
    \19\ Id., at 6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 8 and 
Exhibit GEN-S4. For further discussion, see India AD Initiation 
Checklist, Japan AD Initiation Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General 
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce 
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for 
the Petitions.\20\ First, the Petitions established support from 
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, 
Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate 
industry support (e.g., polling).\21\ Second, the domestic producers 
(or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product.\22\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petitions.\23\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that 
the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
    \22\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are 
requesting that Commerce initiate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 38-39; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 8 and Exhibit GEN-S5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17998]]

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports, 
reduced market share, underselling and price depression or suppression, 
decline in the domestic industry's shipments, production, and capacity 
utilization, decline in the domestic industry's financial performance, 
and lost sales and revenues.\26\ We have assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, causation, as well as cumulation, and we have determined that 
these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet 
the statutory requirements for initiation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id., at 1-3, 33-49 and Exhibits GEN-2 and GEN-4 through 
GEN-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8-9 and Exhibits 
GEN-S1 and GEN-S5.
    \27\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Glycine from the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, 
and Thailand (Attachment III); see also Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III; see also Thailand AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate AD 
investigations of imports of glycine from India, Japan, and Thailand. 
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. 
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific 
initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For India, Japan, and Thailand, the petitioners based export price 
(EP) on pricing information for glycine produced in, and exported from, 
those countries and sold or offered for sale in the United States.\28\ 
For Thailand, the petitioners also based EP on the average unit value 
of publicly available import data.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
    \29\ See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where appropriate, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price 
consistent with the terms of sale, as applicable.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For India, Japan and Thailand, the petitioners obtained home market 
prices but demonstrated that these prices were below the cost of 
production (COP) during the proposed POI. Therefore, the petitioners 
calculated NV based on constructed value (CV) pursuant to section 
773(a)(4) of the Act. See the section ``Normal Value Based on 
Constructed Value'' below.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
these investigations, Commerce will request information necessary to 
calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product 
have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the 
product. Commerce no longer requires a COP allegation to conduct 
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    As noted above, for India, Japan, and Thailand, the petitioners 
were able to obtain home market prices but demonstrated that these 
prices were below the COP during the POI; therefore, the petitioners 
based NV on CV pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing 
(COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial 
expenses; profit; and packing expenses.
    For India, the petitioners calculated the COM based on a domestic 
producer's own input factors of production and usage rates for raw 
materials, energy, and packing.\32\ The input factors of production 
were valued using publicly available data on costs specific to India, 
during the proposed POI.\33\ Specifically, the prices for raw material 
and packing inputs were based on publicly available import data for 
India.\34\ Labor and energy costs were valued using publicly available 
sources for India.\35\ The petitioners calculated factory overhead, 
SG&A (including financial expenses) and profit based on the experience 
of an Indian producer of glycine.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Japan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on a domestic 
producer's own input factors of production and usage rates for raw 
materials, energy, and packing.\37\ The input factors of production 
were valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Japan, 
during the proposed POI.\38\ Specifically, the prices for raw material 
and packing inputs were based on publicly available import or export 
data for Japan.\39\ Labor and energy costs were valued using publicly 
available sources from Japan.\40\ The petitioners calculated factory 
overhead, SG&A (including financial expenses) and profit based on the 
experience of a Japanese producer of glycine.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Thailand, the petitioners calculated the COM based on a 
domestic producer's own input factors of production and usage rates for 
raw materials, labor, energy, and packing.\42\ The input factors of 
production were valued using publicly available data on costs specific 
to Thailand, during the proposed POI.\43\ Specifically, the prices for 
raw material and packing inputs were based on publicly available import 
data for Thailand.\44\ Labor and energy costs were valued using 
publicly available sources for Thailand.\45\ The petitioners calculated 
factory overhead, SG&A (including financial expenses), and profit for 
Thailand based the experience of a Thai producer of glycine.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of glycine from India, Japan, and Thailand are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 
and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for glycine for each 
of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) India--
80.49 percent; \47\ (2) Japan--86.22 percent; \48\ and (3) Thailand--
176.00 to 227.17 percent.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \48\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \49\ See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions, we find that the 
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of 
glycine from India, Japan, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with 
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no

[[Page 17999]]

later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    In the Petitions, the petitioners named ten companies in India, 
nine companies in Japan, and one company in Thailand, as producers/
exporters of glycine.\50\ With regard to India and Japan, following 
standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy 
countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of 
companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company 
based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to 
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
data for U.S. imports of glycine from India and Japan during the POI 
under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
numbers listed in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 23-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative 
Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information 
protected by APO on the record within five business days of publication 
of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the 
placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. 
Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those 
comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial 
comments. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure 
under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing 
such applications may be found on the Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
    Although Commerce normally relies on import data from CBP to 
determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for 
individual examination in AD investigations involving market economy 
countries, the petitioners identified only one company as a producer/
exporter of glycine in Thailand, Newtrend Food Ingredient (Thailand) 
Co., Ltd., and the petitioners provided information from independent 
sources as support.\51\ Furthermore, we currently know of no additional 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Thailand. Accordingly, 
Commerce intends to examine all known producers/exporters in the 
Thailand AD investigation (i.e., Newtrend Food Ingredient (Thailand) 
Co., Ltd.). We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. 
Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection for Thailand must do 
so within three business days of the publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit GEN-6; see also 
General Issues Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit GEN-S2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All respondent selection comments must be filed electronically 
using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received 
successfully, in its entirety, by Commerce's electronic records system, 
ACCESS, no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the dates noted above. We intend 
to make our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of 
publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of India, Japan, and Thailand via ACCESS. 
To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the 
public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the 
Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of glycine from India, Japan, and/or Thailand 
are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.\52\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result 
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.\53\ 
Otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual 
information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual 
information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \54\ and, if the 
information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\55\ Time limits for 
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Interested parties should review the 
regulations prior to submitting factual information in these 
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \55\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are 
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting 
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension 
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final 
Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\56\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR

[[Page 18000]]

351.303(g).\57\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \57\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce 
published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents 
Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). 
Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure 
that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing 
of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) 
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: April 17, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is glycine at 
any purity level or grade. This includes glycine of all purity 
levels, which covers all forms of crude or technical glycine 
including, but not limited to, sodium glycinate, glycine slurry and 
any other forms of amino acetic acid or glycine. Subject merchandise 
also includes glycine and precursors of dried crystalline glycine 
that are processed in a third country, including, but not limited 
to, refining or any other processing that would not otherwise remove 
the merchandise from the scope of these investigations if performed 
in the country of manufacture of the in-scope glycine or precursors 
of dried crystalline glycine. Glycine has the Chemical Abstracts 
Service (CAS) registry number of 56-40-6. Glycine and glycine slurry 
are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) subheading 2922.49.43.00. Sodium glycinate is classified in 
the HTSUS under 2922.49.80.00. While the HTSUS subheadings and CAS 
registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of these investigations is 
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2018-08664 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P